Newsweek on the Bible - "So misunderstood, it's sinful"

ExpandCollapse

Administrator

Administrator

I just started reading this article and I'm not sure I can finish. The errors and bias from the very first paragraph are so glaring that I'm shocked that this could even make it into a national publication - but then I shouldn't be surprised.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

I could not read it all either. The godless left continues its war on Christianity, yet many Christians vote for Democrats. Two out of three voters voted against vouchers in California a few years back, which would have allowed school choice. And probably 30% or more of those voters claim to be Christian.

I will address just one falsehood that caught my eye, that copies of NT writings were not made for hundreds of years. Actually we have some fragments that date within 50 years of the original. Not many but some. Too soon to peddle a significant change. Recall when the Smithsonian tried to peddle a revisionist history surrounding the Enola Gay. Because it had only been about 50 years since the event (nuclear bombing of Japan) some of the people involved and many of the children of the people involved were still alive and knew the facts. The person in charge of the Smithsonian almost lost his job, and an accurate history was then presented.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

It's just crazy how many glaring inaccuracies there are in the article - just basic historical errors. How could the publisher let this go? It's one thing if it were an editorial but an article?

Click to expand...

Just for the sake of discussion please list at least some of the historical errors you found in the article. It is hard to discuss otherwise. I may or may not agree with you, but at least we could have a discussion.

ExpandCollapse

Administrator

Administrator

Just for the sake of discussion please list at least some of the historical errors you found in the article. It is hard to discuss otherwise. I may or may not agree with you, but at least we could have a discussion.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Let's start with the tens of thousands of manuscripts found since the Bible was written.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

I thought one of the big glaring problems with the article was when it said that the Bible we have is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation. This totally ignores the fact that we have both Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

ExpandCollapse

Administrator

Administrator

Do you think the publisher even knows the truth as opposed to the inaccuracies?

Click to expand...

I am guessing not. But honestly, some of this stuff even my kids know the answer to and it felt to me like some bratty young person getting on a bulletin board with his "proof" that the Bible is false - and then gets hammered with the truth and he sulks away. Only this guy doesn't have the benefit of learning the truth.

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

I've never heard of this Eichenwald fellow, but he's far more biblically illiterate than those he castigates. His piece is chock-full of misinformation. For example:

In fact, the earliest versions of Mark stop at 16:8. It’s an awkward ending, with three women who have gone to the tomb where Jesus was laid after the Crucifixion encountering a man who tells them to let the disciples know that the resurrected Jesus will see them in Galilee. The women flee the tomb, and “neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.’’ In early copies of the original Greek writings, that’s it.

Click to expand...

But also in "early copies of the original Greek writings," that's not it. In fact, out of all the Greek manuscripts that have survived, only 2 Greek manuscripts do not have these verses, while 1620+ manuscripts do have them, including manuscripts from the same time period as those that don't, the 4th and 5th centuries. Also, Irenaeus in the second century had the passage in his Bible.

The 12 verses that follow in modern Bibles—Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene and the Disciples and then ascending to Heaven—are not there. A significant moment that would be hard to forget, one would think.

The same is true for other critical portions of the Bible, such as 1 John 5:7 (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”); Luke 22:20 (“Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you”); and Luke 24:51 (“And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven”). These first appeared in manuscripts used by the translators who created the King James Bible, but are not in the Greek copies from hundreds of years earlier.

Click to expand...

He groups all three passages (1 John 5:7; Luke 22:20; Luke 24:51) together and says, "These first appeared in manuscripts used by the translators who created the King James Bible, but are not in the Greek copies from hundreds of years earlier." He seems totally ignorant that in the case of Luke 22:20 the first and apparently only Greek manuscript to omit the verse is D/05 from the 5th century, while it is present in a manuscript 200 years earlier (p75) as well as 1550 others that have survived. In the case of Luke 24:51, the passage is missing in two Greek manuscripts (ℵ/01 from the fourth century and D/05 from the fifth), but is present in all other Greek manuscripts, including p75 from around 200.

His article merely proves that biblical illiteracy, beginning with himself as the chief offender, is remarkably high. The fact that whoever vetted his piece did not or rather could not catch his incredible amount of misstatements further demonstrates his point about biblical illiteracy.

Another example: Eichenwald states regarding the passage of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11): "Unfortunately, John didn’t write it. Scribes made it up sometime in the Middle Ages." Despite the fact that the story appears in a manuscript (D/05) dated by some (e.g. David Parker) to 400, well before "sometime in the Middle Ages," and that that scribe obviously (from his mistakes) didn't create the story himself, and that Papias in the 2d century knew of a similar if not the same story, this inaccuracy is hard to excuse. Ironically, while introducing this section, Eichenwald states, "Scribes added whole sections of the New Testament, and removed words and sentences that contradicted emerging orthodox beliefs. Take one of the most famous tales from the New Testament, which starts in John 7:53" (emphasis mine). Does he not know that the spirit and character of the early church fathers was to make laws more rigid and well-defined rather than grayer and more ambiguous?

"So if Jesus even let adulteresses off scot-free, certainly our policies against long hair on men and pants on women don't have a leg to stand on, and so the passage needn't be recited in church," and eventually certain early leaders "removed words and sentences" such as John 7:53-8:11 "that contradicted emerging orthodox beliefs."

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

Have you looked at the manuscript evidence? There are about 5500 manuscripts. Not even 10,000 no less 20,000+!

Click to expand...

There are closer to 5,900 Greek manuscripts now (the exact number changes frequently). Mind you, these are just the MSS written in Greek (which would be of the NT). Here is the quote from the article --

But in the past 100 years or so, tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament have been discovered, dating back centuries. ​

In the article the writer flips back and forth between describing the NT, OT, and complete Bible. There are 10,000+ manuscripts of the Latin versions alone, I think. But the writer cannot escape his error of "in the past 100 years" with a weasel "or so" inserted because these Bible manuscripts in various languages have been accumulating for centuries (not just "discovered" recently). And he can't be making a reference to the Dead Sea Scroll or Cairo finds because those would be only Old Testament.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Supporter

I've already sent in a letter to Newsweek's editors but doubt it will make much difference.

Even mainline scholars I know we're shocked at the poor scholarship behind this article. The author makes such sweeping claims with little evidence that he's actually engaged the topic substantively. There is, in almost every paragraph, grevious error upon error.

Of course, we Christians are used to this by now. To Newsweek's shame they continue to publish these stories and articles. What a terrible publication.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Have you looked at the manuscript evidence? There are about 5500 manuscripts. Not even 10,000 no less 20,000+!

Click to expand...

You understand that you are having a discussion with someone who has a very low view of scripture. The two of you do not start in the same hemisphere. You might as well be talking to the author of the article you posted.

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

The gold standard of English Bibles is the King James Version, completed in 1611, but that was not a translation of the original Greek. Instead, a Church of England committee relied primarily on Latin manuscripts translated from Greek. (emphasis mine)

Click to expand...

All one needs to do is look on the title page of the 1611:

"The Holy Bible Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall Tongues: and with the former Translations diligently compared and reuised, by his Maiesties speciall Commandment."

Never mind that the "original Greek" in the Bible to which he refers would only correspond to the New Testament. His paragraph makes him sound ignorant of the fact that the Bible was written in more than one language.

It is such journalistic trash and makes the opponents of the Bible look so uneducated and stupid that one wonders if that was the point, to make Bible opponents look bad, really, really bad.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

"The Holy Bible Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall Tongues: and with the former Translations diligently compared and reuised, by his Maiesties speciall Commandment."

Never mind that the "original Greek" in the Bible to which he refers would only correspond to the New Testament. His paragraph makes him sound ignorant of the fact that the Bible was written in more than one language.

It is such journalistic trash and makes the opponents of the Bible look so uneducated and stupid that one wonders if that was the point, to make Bible opponents look bad, really, really bad.

Click to expand...

His take on the Bible would be consistent though with someone who has been raised up in an age where even among some Christians, the inerrancy and the authority of the scriptures are questioned, so makes sense him having a rationalist view on it!

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!